DALLAS February 5, 2013 – In a surpise move, a commission of the Turkish Parliament last week accepted a petition from a Turkish citizen to reopen the Hagia Sophia as a place of worship for Muslims.

The center of Orthodox worship in the Eastern Roman Empire for over a thousand years (360 – 1453), the Church of the Holy Wisdom, more commonly known by its Greek name Hagia Sophia, has been a museum since 1935 and draws millions of visitors every year. After the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453, it became the first imperial mosque of the Ottoman Empire, and the call to prayer sounded from its minarets for almost 500 years.

“The Hagia Sophia Mosque in Trabzon has, unfortunately and for no good reason, been used as a museum until now. This sort of thing won’t happen as long as we are in power. Mosques are for worshipping Allah. No law can ever change its original purpose. If Allah is willing, we will all together reopen the Trabzon Hagia Sophia as soon as possible. If Allah is willing, we will go to Trabzon. We will line up for prayer and say ‘Allahu Ekber’ in the mosque of our ancestors.”

The neo-Ottoman aspriations of Islamist politicans like Arınç are no secret. Statements like the preceeding are standard fare in Turkey’s cultural war.

The problem with that statement is that its original purpose, dating back to the first building, was as a Christian church, not a Muslim mosque - hence why some of the original mosaics have been plastered over.

I frankly think it should just stay a museum. By this point the building has been used as worship for both Islam and Christianity and is important to both groups, so the relics/artifacts in it should be open to all (and those who aren't religious) to view. As the article states earlier it'd just reopen old wounds and leaving it as is is showing consideration (neutrality) to both sides. We'll see what happens though.

Maybe it will collapse on them (and no, I don't feel this is wrong at all - if someone decides "Hey, lets go worship at our newly reconquered mosque" I think it is evidence enough of them being a scumbag).

Maybe it will collapse on them (and no, I don't feel this is wrong at all - if someone decides "Hey, lets go worship at our newly reconquered mosque" I think it is evidence enough of them being a scumbag).

That would be good too.

« Last Edit: February 13, 2013, 12:23:33 PM by Cyrillic »

Logged

That is the land of lost content, I see it shining plain, The happy highways where I went And cannot come again.-A.E. Housman

DALLAS February 5, 2013 – In a surpise move, a commission of the Turkish Parliament last week accepted a petition from a Turkish citizen to reopen the Hagia Sophia as a place of worship for Muslims.

The center of Orthodox worship in the Eastern Roman Empire for over a thousand years (360 – 1453), the Church of the Holy Wisdom, more commonly known by its Greek name Hagia Sophia, has been a museum since 1935 and draws millions of visitors every year. After the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453, it became the first imperial mosque of the Ottoman Empire, and the call to prayer sounded from its minarets for almost 500 years.

First they take Deir el-Zafaran from the native Syriacs, now this. Sick, sick people.

It's been a mosque for 500 years and since the Catastrophe of the 1920's there aren't many Orthodox left in Turkey.

Deir el-Zafaran? Deir Mor Gabriel? No and no. The first actually still has about a dozen people in it (a handful of elderly monks, plus a few young students from local Syriac families), but regularly faces the same sorts of pressures and accusations that come as "evidence" before Turkish courts against the already-confiscated Mor Gabriel (e.g., its existence is an affront to local Muslims, so they have to come up with something to get it taken away...as I understand it, they are waiting for the last elderly monastics to die so that they can take it). Neither has ever been a mosque, to my knowledge, and even if they were, so what? Muslims get to take everything, and nobody can say otherwise? That's a load of garbage. The only reason it's even like this for Christians in Turkey in the first place (whether Greeks and their Hagia Sophia, or Armenians and their various destroyed churches, or Syriacs and their destroyed and confiscated churches and monasteries) is because the Turks' and Kurds' attempted genocide of all Christians in that part of the world. I don't know about you, but I don't want to see the perpetrators of genocide rewarded for having so successfully crushed the minorities in their midst by allowing them to continue their re-Islamification of Christian places of worship just because it started some centuries ago. It was wrong then (1453, 1890, 1915...how many times do we have to watch this happen?), and it's wrong now, and it will always and forever be wrong.

Dzheremi, I was talking about the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, Nicaea and Trapezounta. I know about the Syriac monasteries that are being harassed by the Turks, it's truly awful

And I am saying it's all the same crap, and I'm sick of it. If all genocide is equally terrible, the Turks should be hunted down to the ends of the earth and never given a moment's peace (as elderly Nazis still are; hell, the stolen art looted by the Nazis has been pursued with greater vigor than the genocide of the Christians of Turkey has even been addressed), not excused from the effects of the genocides on which their current hegemony is built when the oppression of the remnants of those same massacred populations is ongoing, and this latest aggressive attempt at re-Islamification is but the latest expression of their contempt for the natives of the region who have the audacity not to share in their false religion. (Note that ethnic Turks who have converted to Christianity in recent years are criminally prosecuted for the made-up crime of "insulting Turkishness", just as certain Turkish authors like Orhan Pamuk have been prosecuted under the same statute for admitting that the genocides did in fact take place.)

Turkey is in major denial, and ought to be shamed by the world, not cooperated with or catered to in any way.

Dzheremi, I was talking about the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, Nicaea and Trapezounta. I know about the Syriac monasteries that are being harassed by the Turks, it's truly awful

And I am saying it's all the same crap, and I'm sick of it. If all genocide is equally terrible, the Turks should be hunted down to the ends of the earth and never given a moment's peace (as elderly Nazis still are; hell, the stolen art looted by the Nazis has been pursued with greater vigor than the genocide of the Christians of Turkey has even been addressed), not excused from the effects of the genocides on which their current hegemony is built when the oppression of the remnants of those same massacred populations is ongoing, and this latest aggressive attempt at re-Islamification is but the latest expression of their contempt for the natives of the region who have the audacity not to share in their false religion. (Note that ethnic Turks who have converted to Christianity in recent years are criminally prosecuted for the made-up crime of "insulting Turkishness", just as certain Turkish authors like Orhan Pamuk have been prosecuted under the same statute for admitting that the genocides did in fact take place.)

Turkey is in major denial, and ought to be shamed by the world, not cooperated with or catered to in any way.

Is this really any different than if a petition were sent to Congress then they'd have to consider it? (depending on the number of signatures)I dunno if that's how our federal government works, but I know in my State if I get enough petitions on anything I can send it and our state legislators have to consider it.

Also, one of the quotes later on in the article refers to the church in Trabzon and not Istanbul.

Either way, I doubt we have much to worry about. I really don't think they'd change it back to a mosque.

I was pretty appalled by this news and wanted to post it. Please, no EU for Turkey. Ever.

No EU for Turkey means that things are bound to continue from bad to worse for what's left of the Christian minority in that country. Besides, lots of Turks have already moved to Europe.

If they are doing well economically and agree to amend their ways with minorities, why not? It's not like Europe were a Christian polity any longer... Muslim communities are already flowering in Western European countries.

I was pretty appalled by this news and wanted to post it. Please, no EU for Turkey. Ever.

No EU for Turkey means that things are bound to continue from bad to worse for what's left of the Christian minority in that country. Besides, lots of Turks have already moved to Europe.

If they are doing well economically and agree to amend their ways with minorities, why not? It's not like Europe were a Christian polity any longer... Muslim communities are already flowering in Western European countries.

I've heard this argument before, and it is intriguing but I kind of wonder how it works, given the reality that Europe is not a Christian polity. In today's political and religious climate in the West (meaning, in Europe and increasingly in the United States), in which Christians and Christianity are increasingly disrespected and the public profession and expression of Christianity is increasingly legislated out of existence/made legally irrelevant, how is it that incorporation of Turkey into the EU should make things better for Christians in Turkey? Because all of these people who hate Christianity in the EU will suddenly care so much about it in Turkey? Seems unrealistic to me. I have seen maybe half a dozen examples of Western European politicians truly standing up for Christians in Turkey (like YouTube sensation Austrian MP Ewald Stadler), but they are often treated as extremists and paranoid people for expressing their anger at Turkey's two-faced hypocrisy.

So, yeah...I don't really see how this is supposed to work. Are you European? Can you help me understand this?

Not surprising. Time to ban mosques in Greece, again...until WE get it back.

I have a better idea. Let's tear down the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem if Turks become courageous enough to do what they have long been dreaming of. If Hagia Sophia is turned into a mosque, the Dome of the Rock in Israel must be turned into ruins. The USA and Israel should join forces to realize this.

I was pretty appalled by this news and wanted to post it. Please, no EU for Turkey. Ever.

No EU for Turkey means that things are bound to continue from bad to worse for what's left of the Christian minority in that country. Besides, lots of Turks have already moved to Europe.

If they are doing well economically and agree to amend their ways with minorities, why not? It's not like Europe were a Christian polity any longer... Muslim communities are already flowering in Western European countries.

I've heard this argument before, and it is intriguing but I kind of wonder how it works, given the reality that Europe is not a Christian polity. In today's political and religious climate in the West (meaning, in Europe and increasingly in the United States), in which Christians and Christianity are increasingly disrespected and the public profession and expression of Christianity is increasingly legislated out of existence/made legally irrelevant, how is it that incorporation of Turkey into the EU should make things better for Christians in Turkey? Because all of these people who hate Christianity in the EU will suddenly care so much about it in Turkey? Seems unrealistic to me. I have seen maybe half a dozen examples of Western European politicians truly standing up for Christians in Turkey (like YouTube sensation Austrian MP Ewald Stadler), but they are often treated as extremists and paranoid people for expressing their anger at Turkey's two-faced hypocrisy.

So, yeah...I don't really see how this is supposed to work. Are you European? Can you help me understand this?

+1

I'd only add that to say that "Muslim communities are already flowering in Western European countries." makes it sound so incredibly benign, and I suppose that, on the surface it may well be. But with static or falling birth rates for non-Muslims in Europe and much higher birth rates for Muslims, well...it don't take no genius t'figger out how dat'll end up . (I can see this thread getting moved to "Politics", eh .)

How is it that incorporation of Turkey into the EU should make things better for Christians in Turkey? Because all of these people who hate Christianity in the EU will suddenly care so much about it in Turkey? Seems unrealistic to me. I have seen maybe half a dozen examples of Western European politicians truly standing up for Christians in Turkey (like YouTube sensation Austrian MP Ewald Stadler), but they are often treated as extremists and paranoid people for expressing their anger at Turkey's two-faced hypocrisy.

So, yeah...I don't really see how this is supposed to work. Are you European? Can you help me understand this?

Turkey is a secular state - Europe is a secular-minded confederation of states. Right now, things are considerably worse for the Christian minority in Turkey than they are for Christians in the EU.

Maybe the EU could fund the restoration of Christian monuments in Turkey. Maybe the Greeks, Arameans, Armenians with roots there could more easily visit their homeland and perhaps even return to live there. Maybe the EP wouldn't have to consider the prospect of abandoning Constantinople and moving the Patriarchal See elsewhere. Maybe a secular (Muslim) European state would balance the political equilibrium in the area. Last but not least, Turkey could not continue with it's "two-faced hypocrisy" indefinitely, once it became part of the EU.

I happen to live in the EU, but I wouldn't describe myself as too much of an enthusiast. I know European integration comes with strings attached for Christians, but overall I think it might be a lesser evil than the Turkish yoke is right now.

Not surprising. Time to ban mosques in Greece, again...until WE get it back.

I have a better idea. Let's tear down the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem if Turks become courageous enough to do what they have long been dreaming of. If Hagia Sophia is turned into a mosque, the Dome of the Rock in Israel must be turned into ruins. The USA and Israel should join forces to realize this.

LOL! I don't think the Israelis have the guts for that. But it's nice to think about, anyway.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

I'd only add that to say that "Muslim communities are already flowering in Western European countries." makes it sound so incredibly benign, and I suppose that, on the surface it may well be. But with static or falling birth rates for non-Muslims in Europe and much higher birth rates for Muslims, well...it don't take no genius t'figger out how dat'll end up . (I can see this thread getting moved to "Politics", eh .)

Yours is Pharao's logic: "Look, the Israelite people are more numerous and more powerful than we. Come, let us deal shrewdly with them, or they will increase and, in the event of war, join our enemies and fight against us." (Exodus 1, 9-10) If they are having more children than the (ex-)Christians, then it must be God's will for them to increase and for us to decrease. Or our will and God's allowance.

Not surprising. Time to ban mosques in Greece, again...until WE get it back.

I have a better idea. Let's tear down the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem if Turks become courageous enough to do what they have long been dreaming of. If Hagia Sophia is turned into a mosque, the Dome of the Rock in Israel must be turned into ruins. The USA and Israel should join forces to realize this.

LOL! I don't think the Israelis have the guts for that. But it's nice to think about, anyway.

I gotta disagree with you there--I'm pretty sure the Israelis do, but the Americans would wimp-out and try to keep them from doing it.

I'd only add that to say that "Muslim communities are already flowering in Western European countries." makes it sound so incredibly benign, and I suppose that, on the surface it may well be. But with static or falling birth rates for non-Muslims in Europe and much higher birth rates for Muslims, well...it don't take no genius t'figger out how dat'll end up . (I can see this thread getting moved to "Politics", eh .)

Yours is Pharao's logic: "Look, the Israelite people are more numerous and more powerful than we. Come, let us deal shrewdly with them, or they will increase and, in the event of war, join our enemies and fight against us." (Exodus 1, 9-10) If they are having more children than the (ex-)Christians, then it must be God's will for them to increase and for us to decrease. Or someone ourwill and God's allowance.

I can't comment on whose will it is or isn't--just pointing out the situation. One can always take the viewpoint that anything that happens is either God's will or someone else's will and God's allowance. I dare say that it's almost impossible to argue with that--not that I necessarily would, except perhaps, if I was having a particularly curmudgeonly day .

I can't comment on whose will it is or isn't--just pointing out the situation. One can always take the viewpoint that anything that happens is either God's will or someone else's will and God's allowance. I dare say that it's almost impossible to argue with that--not that I necessarily would, except perhaps, if I was having a particularly curmudgeonly day .

Nothing can be done about it, unless Christians freely decide to have more children.

All sort of state-enforced demographic policy is bound to be disastrous. Under Ceaușescu's dictatorship such attempts were made in Romania - we ended up with overloaded orphanages and lots of homeless children on the streets, which our society was never capable of integrating.

Shutting the borders of the EU and adopting right-wing discriminatory policies towards immigrants isn't an option either. The ideal is for them to be efficiently integrated. And then, if they are open and the Church is up to it, evangelized.

I was pretty appalled by this news and wanted to post it. Please, no EU for Turkey. Ever.

No EU for Turkey means that things are bound to continue from bad to worse for what's left of the Christian minority in that country. Besides, lots of Turks have already moved to Europe.

If they are doing well economically and agree to amend their ways with minorities, why not? It's not like Europe were a Christian polity any longer... Muslim communities are already flowering in Western European countries.

I can't comment on whose will it is or isn't--just pointing out the situation. One can always take the viewpoint that anything that happens is either God's will or someone else's will and God's allowance. I dare say that it's almost impossible to argue with that--not that I necessarily would, except perhaps, if I was having a particularly curmudgeonly day .

Nothing can be done about it, unless Christians freely decide to have more children.

All sort of state-enforced demographic policy is bound to be disastrous. Under Ceaușescu's dictatorship such attempts were made in Romania - we ended up with overloaded orphanages and lots of homeless children on the streets, which our society was never capable of integrating.

Shutting the borders of the EU and adopting right-wing discriminatory policies towards immigrants isn't an option either. The ideal is for them to be efficiently integrated. And then, if they are open and the Church is up to it, evangelized.

Getting a decent education, learning the language of their adoptive country, getting decent jobs in areas where they are capable of contributing to the welfare of society, not being segregated as outsiders or discriminated against.

In short, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"; "you shall not wrong or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt".

Getting a decent education, learning the language of their adoptive country, getting decent jobs in areas where they are capable of contributing to the welfare of society, not being segregated as outsiders or discriminated against.

In short, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"; "you shall not wrong or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt".

And what are the chances of all that happening in an increasingly non-Christian (or is it *un*-Christian?) society like most of the EU?

And what are the chances of all that happening in an increasingly non-Christian (or is it *un*-Christian?) society like most of the EU?

I don't think people must be Christian to be decent to foreigners. In fact, some who like to think of themselves as good Christians wrongly assume that it pleases God for them to mistreat/discriminate against foreigners.

And what are the chances of all that happening in an increasingly non-Christian (or is it *un*-Christian?) society like most of the EU?

I don't think people must be Christian to be decent to foreigners. In fact, some who like to think of themselves as good Christians wrongly assume that it pleases God for them to mistreat/discriminate against foreigners.

Getting a decent education, learning the language of their adoptive country, getting decent jobs in areas where they are capable of contributing to the welfare of society, not being segregated as outsiders or discriminated against.

You're dreaming. They do not want any assimilation.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

If the supposedly secular nature of Turkey and the EU is to be the nexus point at which the two can comfortably meet, then I would think that the properly integrated Muslim, in this schema, is one who ceases to view his religion as inherently more worthy of respect, toleration, or deference than any other, nor his community as being more worthy of any of that by virtue of their religious or other cultural identities (and as a corollary to this realization, also feels the same sense of equality with the Christians in his native land). I'm at loss as to how learning the language, having a particular kind of job, or living in a certain area does that. As has been pointed out in many different contexts, many a future terrorist obtained degrees from Western universities and was highly respected (and well off) in advanced fields of medicine, law, and other prestigious professions. This did not stop them from becoming terrorists.

I would hope that the standard by which people consider the idea of 'integration' would be something a bit more realistically effective, such as I don't know...wanting to integrate, including respect for the existing laws and pluralistic cultural values of the new host country. I mean, as a point of comparison, a lot of bad things have been said about how supposedly terrible the "invasion" faced by the United States from our neighbors to the south is, but I can't recall the last time a Latino killed a non-Catholic priest as an act of fomenting sectarian hatred, or killed his own daughter for dating a boy, or insisted that the Douay-Rheims translation of the Bible be placed above all other religious books in a library in light of its obvious superiority and what a terrible insult it is to place inferior texts around it, or suggested to the senate that Christians take over mosques in the North America, etc.

I was pretty appalled by this news and wanted to post it. Please, no EU for Turkey. Ever.

No EU for Turkey means that things are bound to continue from bad to worse for what's left of the Christian minority in that country. Besides, lots of Turks have already moved to Europe.

If they are doing well economically and agree to amend their ways with minorities, why not? It's not like Europe were a Christian polity any longer... Muslim communities are already flowering in Western European countries.

Not surprising. Time to ban mosques in Greece, again...until WE get it back.

I have a better idea. Let's tear down the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem if Turks become courageous enough to do what they have long been dreaming of. If Hagia Sophia is turned into a mosque, the Dome of the Rock in Israel must be turned into ruins. The USA and Israel should join forces to realize this.

LOL! I don't think the Israelis have the guts for that. But it's nice to think about, anyway.

I gotta disagree with you there--I'm pretty sure the Israelis do, but the Americans would wimp-out and try to keep them from doing it.

I don't think so, if Izzy actually went and did it, I'm sure the AIPAC's in Washington would stifle any resistance.

Besides, I'm sure the Israeli's could blast it away and blame it on one of Hamas's rockets gone awry.

I was pretty appalled by this news and wanted to post it. Please, no EU for Turkey. Ever.

No EU for Turkey means that things are bound to continue from bad to worse for what's left of the Christian minority in that country. Besides, lots of Turks have already moved to Europe.

If they are doing well economically and agree to amend their ways with minorities, why not? It's not like Europe were a Christian polity any longer... Muslim communities are already flowering in Western European countries.

I've heard this argument before, and it is intriguing but I kind of wonder how it works, given the reality that Europe is not a Christian polity. In today's political and religious climate in the West (meaning, in Europe and increasingly in the United States), in which Christians and Christianity are increasingly disrespected and the public profession and expression of Christianity is increasingly legislated out of existence/made legally irrelevant, how is it that incorporation of Turkey into the EU should make things better for Christians in Turkey? Because all of these people who hate Christianity in the EU will suddenly care so much about it in Turkey? Seems unrealistic to me. I have seen maybe half a dozen examples of Western European politicians truly standing up for Christians in Turkey (like YouTube sensation Austrian MP Ewald Stadler), but they are often treated as extremists and paranoid people for expressing their anger at Turkey's two-faced hypocrisy.

So, yeah...I don't really see how this is supposed to work. Are you European? Can you help me understand this?

+1

I'd only add that to say that "Muslim communities are already flowering in Western European countries." makes it sound so incredibly benign, and I suppose that, on the surface it may well be. But with static or falling birth rates for non-Muslims in Europe and much higher birth rates for Muslims, well...it don't take no genius t'figger out how dat'll end up . (I can see this thread getting moved to "Politics", eh .)

Indeed, there have already been multiple attempts to blow up the magnificent Duomo of Bologna because it contains a fresco by Giotto that depicts Muhammad in hell. Eventually it will be destroyed. The other great cathedrals may end up like Hagia Sophia and turned into mosques if Muslims reach a critical mass of population in Europe later this century.

I've felt the tragedy of the loss of the great Hagia Sophia ever since I first read about it in this novel when I was 10:

In the book, a history professor and his two young friends in 1950s Massachusetts discover a time machine and travel back to Constantinople in 1453 in an attempt to save the city and Hagia Sophia by scaring off the Turks with various 20th-century fireworks.

I remember shedding tears over the massacre and desecration of the great church, and the book led me to read up everything I could about Byzantium, a passion that has continued for years and at one point almost brought me into the Orthodox Church. There are old pictures of me as an 11- or 12-year-old at family gatherings with a book by John Julius Norwich or Stephen Runciman in my arms.

I've dreamed of visiting Hagia Sophia and Constantinople ever since.

So the loss of Hagia Sophia, and the possibility of the Turks re-desecrating it, is personally painful to me, and thus I understand the anguish of the Orthodox over it. I try to explain to my fellow Catholics that it would be like St. Peter's Basilica or Notre-Dame-de-Chartres (!!!) getting turned into mosques, with all of their magnificent sculptures, holy images and stained glass windows smashed or covered up, with vulgar minarets erected around them and blasphemous Arabic phrases hung above where the altar used to be.

If the hard-liners in Turkey succeed in turning Hagia Sophia back into a mosque, you know what will happen to those surviving mosaics. Except this time they may not be merely whitewashed over.

Turkey is a secular state - Europe is a secular-minded confederation of states. Right now, things are considerably worse for the Christian minority in Turkey than they are for Christians in the EU.

Turkey is only a NOMINALLY secular state which is the reason our circumstances are worsening.

Precisely - what I'm arguing is that, if they join the EU, they'll be forced to become a genuinely secular state. And for the Christian minority that would be better than the way things are going now.

That would be an amazing precedent.

How can a country join the EU when they are militarily occupying another member of the EU: Cyprus? Then there are the energy interests around Cyprus, Israel and Cyprus energy deals, Sarkozy raising a fuss that they still deny the genocides, the Kurds, and the rest of the laundry list of issues they'd have to address to be a member. I thought they'd given up on joining the EU?

You have to admire someone, in order to want to become like him. If he treats you like dirt, then he can't set much of an example for you to follow, can he?

I believe most immigrants want to be assimilated - at least at a basic economical/material level. Otherwise, there would be no reason for them to leave their homeland and come to live among strangers.

Other than the Muslims (and race seems to make little difference amongst them) I'd wholeheartedly agree with you. A lifetime spent living next to some of the largest Muslim communities in the UK shows me that they are rather different. They really do not seem to want assimilation in any way - unless by assimilation you mean that the native population should assimilate to them.

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

Other than the Muslims (and race seems to make little difference amongst them) I'd wholeheartedly agree with you. A lifetime spent living next to some of the largest Muslim communities in the UK shows me that they are rather different. They really do not seem to want assimilation in any way - unless by assimilation you mean that the native population should assimilate to them.

If they partly resist assimilation, it must be because they still believe in their God and view Westerners as godless. Otherwise, many of them seem to adapt to the country they live in - education, learning the language, getting decent jobs. Most Muslims in my hometown came here to study medicine and many stayed on to practice. Our Minister of Health until recently, Mr. Raed Arafat, is a well respected Muslim doctor of Palestinian origin.

When Western Europeans colonized different countries, they didn't assimilate much either, despite being a minority, did they?

Other than the Muslims (and race seems to make little difference amongst them) I'd wholeheartedly agree with you. A lifetime spent living next to some of the largest Muslim communities in the UK shows me that they are rather different. They really do not seem to want assimilation in any way - unless by assimilation you mean that the native population should assimilate to them.

If they partly resist assimilation, it must be because they still believe in their God and view Westerners as godless. Otherwise, many of them seem to adapt to the country they live in - education, learning the language, getting decent jobs. Most Muslims in my hometown came here to study medicine and many stayed on to practice. Our Minister of Health until recently, Mr. Raed Arafat, is a well respected Muslim doctor of Palestinian origin.

When Western Europeans colonized different countries, they didn't assimilate much either, despite being a minority, did they?

I think your view is rather different to mine because whereas I am familiar with the results of mass immigration from South Asia, you're familiar only with a comparative trickle of Muslim immigration for education and the like. There is nowhere in Romania where there is a Muslim community even close to the one in somewhere like Bradford. You really can't compare the two situations at all. And, having grown up amongst Sikhs and Hindus as well as Muslims, I'm quite certain that this is not a problem with immigrants coming from South Asia in general, but rather with those who follow Islam specifically.

And as for colonising other countries, you're right that the colonists generally made no bones about the fact that they wished to stamp their 'superior' culture on the one they were colonising. It seems to me that Muslim immigrants here often seem to share such a view. Maybe we should think of them as colonists instead?

James

« Last Edit: February 14, 2013, 10:41:29 AM by jmbejdl »

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

Other than the Muslims (and race seems to make little difference amongst them) I'd wholeheartedly agree with you. A lifetime spent living next to some of the largest Muslim communities in the UK shows me that they are rather different. They really do not seem to want assimilation in any way - unless by assimilation you mean that the native population should assimilate to them.

If they partly resist assimilation, it must be because they still believe in their God and view Westerners as godless. Otherwise, many of them seem to adapt to the country they live in - education, learning the language, getting decent jobs. Most Muslims in my hometown came here to study medicine and many stayed on to practice. Our Minister of Health until recently, Mr. Raed Arafat, is a well respected Muslim doctor of Palestinian origin.

When Western Europeans colonized different countries, they didn't assimilate much either, despite being a minority, did they?

I think your view is rather different to mine because whereas I am familiar with the results of mass immigration from South Asia, you're familiar only with a comparative trickle of Muslim immigration for education and the like. There is nowhere in Romania where there is a Muslim community even close to the one in somewhere like Bradford. You really can't compare the two situations at all. And, having grown up amongst Sikhs and Hindus as well as Muslims, I'm quite certain that this is not a problem with immigrants coming from South Asia in general, but rather with those who follow Islam specifically.

And as for colonising other countries, you're right that the colonists generally made no bones about the fact that they wished to stamp their 'superior' culture on the one they were colonising. It seems to me that Muslim immigrants here often seem to share such a view. Maybe we should think of them as colonists instead?

James

You may not be far from the truth.

I spent about 11 years in Leicester, one of them smack in the middle of the Muslim community. For the most part the folks were very nice, though somewhat suspicious of the 2 Americans in their midst. The only effort toward assimilation into British society that I could detect was, well...hmmm....oh yeah...Muslim youth drinking it up in the local pubs and having gang fights on the street. Oy vey.

Not surprising. Time to ban mosques in Greece, again...until WE get it back.

I have a better idea. Let's tear down the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem if Turks become courageous enough to do what they have long been dreaming of. If Hagia Sophia is turned into a mosque, the Dome of the Rock in Israel must be turned into ruins. The USA and Israel should join forces to realize this.

Good idea! Sooner or later, it will be destroyed, alongside Mecca and its Kaaba.

Anyways, the future Vatican Pope, Muslim Peter son of the Turk (Turkson) will take care of it.

Not surprising. Time to ban mosques in Greece, again...until WE get it back.

I have a better idea. Let's tear down the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem if Turks become courageous enough to do what they have long been dreaming of. If Hagia Sophia is turned into a mosque, the Dome of the Rock in Israel must be turned into ruins. The USA and Israel should join forces to realize this.

Good idea! Sooner or later, it will be destroyed, alongside Mecca and its Kaaba.

Anyways, the future Vatican Pope, Muslim Peter son of the Turk (Turkson) will take care of it.

And as for colonising other countries, you're right that the colonists generally made no bones about the fact that they wished to stamp their 'superior' culture on the one they were colonising. It seems to me that Muslim immigrants here often seem to share such a view. Maybe we should think of them as colonists instead?

Maybe, although I'm not so sure they do it deliberately and programatically - as Western Europeans once did when colonizing them.

Maybe it's some countries' unique karma to become colonized by Muslims.

I agree that the situation in Britain doesn't compare to the (restricted) phenomenon of Muslim immigration in Romania (our collective "karmas" probably do not compare either).

And as for colonising other countries, you're right that the colonists generally made no bones about the fact that they wished to stamp their 'superior' culture on the one they were colonising. It seems to me that Muslim immigrants here often seem to share such a view. Maybe we should think of them as colonists instead?

Maybe, although I'm not so sure they do it deliberately and programatically - as Western Europeans once did when colonizing them.

Maybe it's some countries' unique karma to become colonized by Muslims.

I agree that the situation in Britain doesn't compare to the (restricted) phenomenon of Muslim immigration in Romania (our collective "karmas" probably do not compare either).

Do you think there is no connection between Moroccan and Algerian immigration to France, Pakistani or Indian immigration in Britain, people from Surinam or Indonesia immigrating to the Netherlands, hispanics immigrating to the US, etc. and those countries having had colonies there? This is the sort of 'karma' I am talking about and it's kind of hard to make sense of it any other way.

If you prefer it in biblical language: "whatever a man shall sow, that also shall he reap" (Gal. 6:7).

And as for colonising other countries, you're right that the colonists generally made no bones about the fact that they wished to stamp their 'superior' culture on the one they were colonising. It seems to me that Muslim immigrants here often seem to share such a view. Maybe we should think of them as colonists instead?

Maybe, although I'm not so sure they do it deliberately and programatically - as Western Europeans once did when colonizing them.

Maybe it's some countries' unique karma to become colonized by Muslims.

I agree that the situation in Britain doesn't compare to the (restricted) phenomenon of Muslim immigration in Romania (our collective "karmas" probably do not compare either).

Karma? Orthodoxy?

It may sound funny to you but the Orthodox (and Catholics) in India do use the term Karma with its original meaning of "Action" or "Work".

Maybe, although I'm not so sure they do it deliberately and programatically - as Western Europeans once did when colonizing them.

Where was that exactly? Nowhere did Europeans drive Muslims out of their countries. There is literally not a square centimetre of Muslim land 500-400-200 years ago that is now not Muslim land (except, some people say Israel. But that is really like modern Americans being jealous of an indian reservation). The exact opposite is true though. They've expanded and further eradicated the pre-Muslim populations of their countries, especially in the past 15 years.

Do you think there is no connection between Moroccan and Algerian immigration to France, Pakistani or Indian immigration in Britain, people from Surinam or Indonesia immigrating to the Netherlands, hispanics immigrating to the US, etc. and those countries having had colonies there? This is the sort of 'karma' I am talking about and it's kind of hard to make sense of it any other way.

If you prefer it in biblical language: "whatever a man shall sow, that also shall he reap" (Gal. 6:7).

If you're going the route of 'karma' look at the reasons France invaded North Africa. A few years of French rule was preceded by 1000 years of North Africans invading Europe and capturing people in slave raids.

And as for colonising other countries, you're right that the colonists generally made no bones about the fact that they wished to stamp their 'superior' culture on the one they were colonising. It seems to me that Muslim immigrants here often seem to share such a view. Maybe we should think of them as colonists instead?

Maybe, although I'm not so sure they do it deliberately and programatically - as Western Europeans once did when colonizing them.

Maybe it's some countries' unique karma to become colonized by Muslims.

I agree that the situation in Britain doesn't compare to the (restricted) phenomenon of Muslim immigration in Romania (our collective "karmas" probably do not compare either).

Karma? Orthodoxy?

It may sound funny to you but the Orthodox (and Catholics) in India do use the term Karma with its original meaning of "Action" or "Work".

I'm aware of the original meaning. What I'm not clear on is whether you are using it that way or not. But...never mind, it is after all an almost irrelevant digression.

If you're going the route of 'karma' look at the reasons France invaded North Africa. A few years of French rule was preceded by 1000 years of North Africans invading Europe and capturing people in slave raids.

"Fate - monstrous and empty, you whirling wheel, status is bad, well-being is vain always may melt away, shadowy and veiled you plague me too; now through the game bare backed I bear your villainy. . . . . . . . . . The wheel of Fortune turns; I go down, demeaned; another is carried to the height; far too high up sits the king at the summit - let him beware ruin!"

I am not sure how that will happen turning this church into a mosque, isn't condemn in Islam in turning a church into a mosque ? Don't they first have to level it to the ground ?.

Remember Muhammad, who turned Hubal's pagan temple to Allah's house when he conquered Mecca. Muslims who turn temples of different faiths into mosques after the Islamic conquest actually follow Muhammad's practice.

If you're going the route of 'karma' look at the reasons France invaded North Africa. A few years of French rule was preceded by 1000 years of North Africans invading Europe and capturing people in slave raids.

"Fate - monstrous and empty, you whirling wheel, status is bad, well-being is vain always may melt away, shadowy and veiled you plague me too; now through the game bare backed I bear your villainy. . . . . . . . . . The wheel of Fortune turns; I go down, demeaned; another is carried to the height; far too high up sits the king at the summit - let him beware ruin!"

I am not sure how that will happen turning this church into a mosque, isn't condemn in Islam in turning a church into a mosque ? Don't they first have to level it to the ground ?.

Remember Muhammad, who turned Hubal's pagan temple to Allah's house when he conquered Mecca. Muslims who turn temples of different faiths into mosques after the Islamic conquest actually follow Muhammad's practice.

One can take the view that ALL of our sufferings, Turks and other Muslims included, are God's "punishment" (or reprimand) for our sins.

The Byzantines could have evangelized the Turks, like St. Cyrill and Methodius had done with the Slavs - instead they just used them as mercenaries in their power games. No one cared what they believed in.

One can take the view that ALL of our sufferings, Turks and other Muslims included, are God's "punishment" (or reprimand) for our sins.

The Byzantines could have evangelized the Turks, like St. Cyrill and Methodius had done with the Slavs - instead they just used them as mercenaries in their power games. No one cared what they believed in.

The Byzantines could have evangelized the Turks, like St. Cyrill and Methodius had done with the Slavs - instead they just used them as mercenaries in their power games. No one cared what they believed in.

Given how much they drink, even as Muslims, I'm sure they'd have prefered it.

I am not sure how that will happen turning this church into a mosque, isn't condemn in Islam in turning a church into a mosque ? Don't they first have to level it to the ground ?.

Remember Muhammad, who turned Hubal's pagan temple to Allah's house when he conquered Mecca. Muslims who turn temples of different faiths into mosques after the Islamic conquest actually follow Muhammad's practice.

Don't they believe it was originally built by Abraham though?

Yes, they do.

Yet there is no evidence for this claim and the Cube had been used as Hubal's temple until Muhammad. Muhammad was such a nationalist Arab leader that he preferred doing homage in the direction of a pagan temple full of idols to praying in the direction of Jerusalem until he conquered Mecca.

They believe it was originally built by Adam as the first place of worship, then rebuilt by Abraham.

Late Muslim tradition teaches so, but this piece of information does not occur in the Qur'an. The writer of the Qur'an attributed the construction of the building to Abraham and Ishmael (Surah 2:217), not to Adam.

One can take the view that ALL of our sufferings, Turks and other Muslims included, are God's "punishment" (or reprimand) for our sins.

The Byzantines could have evangelized the Turks, like St. Cyrill and Methodius had done with the Slavs...

Well, there are a bunch of Turks now. Why don't you give it a try yourself?

I'm no Cyrill nor Methodius. But the Ecumenical Patriarchate finally seems to be paying some attention to the Turks, even if it's just the occasional Gospel read in Turkish at Pascha or ministry to the Karamanlides/Turkish speaking Greeks.

The funny thing is that Muhammad bin Abdallah did not like Turks at all! According to Sahih Bukhari (a reliable source of hadith), he made the following statement:

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the turks; people with small eyes, red faces, and flat noses. Their faces will look like shields coated with leather. The Hour will not be established till you fight with people whose shoes are made of hair." Volume 4, Book 52, Number 179http://www.sahih-bukhari.com/Pages/results.php5

He also claimed that Gog and Magog had the same ancestor as Turks!

(Until, when Ya`juj and Ma`juj are let loose,) We have already mentioned that they are from the progeny of Adam, upon him be peace; they are also descents of Nuh through his son Yafith (Japheth), who was the father of the Turks, Turk referring to the group of them who were left behind the barrier which was built by Dhul-Qarnayn. http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2623&Itemid=76

Almost, but for the words of Holy Elders like St. Cosmas the Aetolian, who viewed the Turk as "God's hound" and the Muslim yoke as punishment for the sins of the Orthodox.

This was a common (apocalyptic) understanding in early Syriac Christianity, too -- the Syriacs being naturally the first people to encounter Islam and Muslims. See Sydney Griffith's "Syriac Writers on Muslims and the Religious Challenge of Islam" (St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, Kottayam 1994). As such, it took a little while for apologetics against Islam to appear in Syriac (rather than just apocalyptic literature painting Muslims/Islam as punishers for Christian sin or laxity). The most famous of this initial wave is probably the earliest (8th century): the disputation between the Monk of Bet Hale and the Arab notable (or, variously, "emir"), which is partially reproduced in the above-mentioned work. It is written elsewhere (in Suha Rassam's 2005 history Christianity in Iraq) that when the Nestorians/East Syrians lost all of their territories in the Arabian Peninsula proper (in which there used to be many dioceses and churches in Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain, etc.) to the Muslim invaders, they did not even blame the Muslims themselves, but rather supposed laxity among their own priests.

Yet I don't see this early tradition as reason enough to continue treating today's Islamic oppression as a continuation of the same phenomenon. After all, plenty of early Christian treatments of Islam viewed it essentially as a Christian heresy, but with increased exposure to Islamic doctrine that view has been challenged quite successfully in some ways. And besides, what have today's Syriac, Byzantine, Coptic, and other native Eastern Christians done? Most have held on to their faith quite tightly, all things considered. Should they be "punished", too, and take the fatalistic view that all the horrors inflicted upon them are divine retribution for...something or other? Did they move to Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands, America, etc. only to have their persecutors hound them there, too? I don't think so...and I've already heard the stories told to me by Coptic friends in the Netherlands that local Muslims would come to their homes on Friday (since I guess Arabic-speakers would cluster together, to some degree), telling them in a threatening manner that it's time to go to the mosque (according to the person who told me this, that behavior only stopped when the father of the family physically threatened the coarse dawah agent with a punch in the face...Copts are peaceful people, but come on). Is that divine retribution, too?

Not to say anything about every individual Muslim on the face of the planet or anything, but I think the much more simple explanation that some people really are just jerks and/or psychopaths acting under the influence of Satan works better than to say that everybody who kills your family members, burns down your house, destroys your monasteries, etc. is acting as the rod of God's anger. (Besides, that honor goes to the Assyrians, who have been Christian to some degree ever since King Abgar corresponded with Jesus Christ our Lord personally; Muslims are nothing but late-comers, hangers on, LARPers, etc.)

Yet I don't see this early tradition as reason enough to continue treating today's Islamic oppression as a continuation of the same phenomenon.

And besides, what have today's Syriac, Byzantine, Coptic, and other native Eastern Christians done? Most have held on to their faith quite tightly, all things considered. Should they be "punished", too, and take the fatalistic view that all the horrors inflicted upon them are divine retribution for...something or other?

Such a fatalistic view would surely be over-simplistic and unfair.

Nevertheless, the idea that historical catastrophes are brought about by the sins/unfaithfulness of the people of God is pretty much the Judeo-Christian theology of history, from the Deuteronomist to St. John the Divine. It cannot be easily dismissed.

Of course the innocent suffer and there are countless martyrs for justice: "For thy sake are we killed all the day long; we are counted as sheep for the slaughter" (Ps. 43:22). "How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?" (Rev. 6:10)

There's also hope for the future: "For the rod of the wicked shall not rest upon the lot of the righteous; lest the righteous put forth their hands unto iniquity." (Ps. 124:3) "Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth." (Mt. 5:5)

I think we're in agreement here, Romaios. My only point was that not all calamities that befall the Christian people are a result of something they've done, and to refer to the Turks as "God's hounds" just because they were once referred to as that is not right.

Either that or God really, really wants to punish Pontic Greeks, Armenians, and Syriacs, for some reason.

Yet I don't see this early tradition as reason enough to continue treating today's Islamic oppression as a continuation of the same phenomenon.

And besides, what have today's Syriac, Byzantine, Coptic, and other native Eastern Christians done? Most have held on to their faith quite tightly, all things considered. Should they be "punished", too, and take the fatalistic view that all the horrors inflicted upon them are divine retribution for...something or other?

Such a fatalistic view would surely be over-simplistic and unfair.

Nevertheless, the idea that historical catastrophes are brought about by the sins/unfaithfulness of the people of God is pretty much the Judeo-Christian theology of history, from the Deuteronomist to St. John the Divine. It cannot be easily dismissed.

Of course the innocent suffer and there are countless martyrs for justice: "For thy sake are we killed all the day long; we are counted as sheep for the slaughter" (Ps. 43:22). "How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?" (Rev. 6:10)

There's also hope for the future: "For the rod of the wicked shall not rest upon the lot of the righteous; lest the righteous put forth their hands unto iniquity." (Ps. 124:3) "Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth." (Mt. 5:5)

The number of revenge fantasies against Muslims I see percolating through these threads make me wonder if I have fundamentally misunderstood Christianity.

Are you now or have you even been a Protestant?!?!

I must admit to my everlasting shame that I used to attend the meetings, occasionally in tents.

Speaking of, sometimes in those tent meetings they would read to us from the great protomartyr's speech:

Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen. Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob. But Solomon built him an house. Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? Hath not my hand made all these things?

Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Despite avidly reading the Bible while growing up as a Protestant, my romance with it started in my Roman-Catholic days. Yet, not until I returned to the Orthodox fold, did I begin to quote Scripture copiously.

Do you think there is no connection between Moroccan and Algerian immigration to France, Pakistani or Indian immigration in Britain, people from Surinam or Indonesia immigrating to the Netherlands, hispanics immigrating to the US, etc. and those countries having had colonies there? This is the sort of 'karma' I am talking about and it's kind of hard to make sense of it any other way.

If you prefer it in biblical language: "whatever a man shall sow, that also shall he reap" (Gal. 6:7).

The sinner shall not escape with his spoils.

Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Despite avidly reading the Bible while growing up as a Protestant, my romance with it started in my Roman-Catholic days. Yet, not until I returned to the Orthodox fold, did I begin to quote Scripture copiously.

I reckon there's not much left to dis-closet now.

Conversion story time?

Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant